Pinkos Appointment Provokes Allegations - Updated

    By Kevin E. Noonan --

Maybe Hal Wegner (at right) is surprised by the continuing shenanigans of the current Patent Office administration.  Maybe he is genuinely offended by their many actions and appointments made with seemingly little or no heed of the legal requirements for holding positions of authority in the Office.  Or maybe he has finally just had enough.

But in a series of e-mails sent to members of his extensive mailing list, Mr. Wegner, the dean of U.S. patent commentators, uncharacteristically excoriated the appointment of Stephen M. Pinkos (at left) to a position on the Patent Public Advisory Committee (P-PAC).  He begins his commentary by noting that "[h]eretofore, the principle concern with the Pinkos P-PAC appointment" was that he might be in a position to "whitewash" his own performance as Under Deputy Secretary for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the Office from 2004-2007.  This, of course, would be bad enough.  But now it seems that Mr. Pinkos, like Margaret Peterlin before him, may lack the statutory requirements for holding the position.

These requirements include someone "chosen so as to represent the interests of diverse [patent] users of the United States Patent and Trademark Office" under 35 U.S.C. § 5(b)(1) or qualified to "represent . . . applicants located in the United States" under 35 U.S.C. § 5(b)(2) or with "substantial background and achievement in finance, management, labor relations, science, technology, and office automation" under 35 U.S.C. § 5(b)(3).

Mr. Pinkos has been a lobbyist since leaving the Patent Office, according to the website of his company, PCT Government Relations LLC.  Although he is a graduate of the DePaul University School of Law, he is not licensed to practice law (according to Martindale-Hubbell) nor is there any record that he has passed the registration examination to practice before the Patent Office.  The website for the International Intellectual Property Institute (where Mr. Pinkos is a member of the Board of Advisors) reports that he is a member of the Virginia bar.

Mr. Pinkos' experience is as a Capitol Hill staffer, specifically as counsel for the House Judiciary Committee.  His appointment as Under Secretary and, presumably his current post, is reportedly nothing more than a political reward for his efforts in support of House Republicans' benighted and ultimately futile attempt to remove President Clinton from office through impeachment.

The motivation for placing Mr. Pinkos on the P-PAC, according to Mr. Wegner, is part of an effort to "whitewash" the incompetence of the current management.  This impression is reinforced by the 2007 P-PAC Annual Report, which is a glowing encomium to the Office's success in promoting patent "quality."  Also praised in the report are efforts to coerce applicants to make statements on the relevance of cited references, shifting the burden of examination from examiners to applicants, placing patent applicants at risk for charges of inequitable conduct, and producing an ethical conflict of interest between patent practitioners and their clients.

It is one thing when Greg Aharonian, known to be occasionally intemperate in his criticism of Patent Office officials, makes similar charges.  It is another thing entirely when someone with the experience and gravitas of Mr. Wegner is compelled to come to the same conclusions.  And it is a testament to how thoroughly current Patent Office management has poisoned the relationship between the Office, applicants, and their representatives, that Mr. Pinkos' appointment has produced this reaction.  If we (and the Office) are lucky, things will begin to change with the commencement of the new administration.  It cannot come too soon.

UPDATE:  Lest anyone think Patent Docs doesn't appreciate Greg Aharonian's tireless efforts in combating Patent Office shenanigans, we refer you to our post on his (ultimately unsuccessful) attempt to have judicial review of the Peterlin appointment (see "Margaret Peterlin Gets to Keep Her Job").  Greg was one of the first members of the patent community to recognize the qualitatively different approach of the current administration, particularly its penchant for doing whatever it wants with little regard for the procedural or statutory requirements.  And whatever you think about his methods or his rhetoric, in these times "occasional intemperance" in defense of the U.S. patent system is no vice.

Comments

[Carlos Fisher]

To the last sentence, Amen brother!

[JD]

I saw Mr. Pinkos speak at an IPO conference back when he was at the PTO. He read the cards very well, but it was abundantly clear that he didn't know a thing about patents, patent prosecution, or what really goes on in the PTO.

At this point, nothing this corrupt bunch of scoundrels does surprises me.